Articles on literature and film are published here.
Why criticise a piece of art when you can simply enjoy the effect it has on you? Criticism can be tremendously productive, namely when it does not dwell on the classification of cultural products into so-called high or pop culture, when instead, consciously renouncing universal evaluation criteria, one allows every work of art to be a more or less subversive irritation of calcified neuronal networks. Writing reviews is an attempt not to go mental from this self-inflicted irritation, i.e. to follow up the deconstruction of world knowledge with a new reconstruction. Anyone looking for a formula that quantitatively translates the quality of art will, at best, be disappointed here. Star ratings don’t get anyone anywhere. Furthermore the texts published here are not scientific in the strictest sense, but merely suggestions for interpretation. This can also be quite nonsense, but as the great sceptic Sportin‘ Life sang: ’It ain’t necessarily so.’ And as a communist kangaroo from Berlin pointed out, right and wrong are bourgeois categories anyway.

New Posts:
-
Intersectional universalism! ‚The Parable of the Sower’ by Octavia Estelle Butler (1993)
If there’s one thing that futuristic novels don’t do, it’s predict the future. Where computerised modulations reach their limits due to the sheer amount of available or unavailable data, a…
-
Terry Gilliam’s underrated gem: ‘The Zero Theorem’ (2013)
Ratings generally have a very limited informative value, as the very attempt to translate the quality of a film into a quantitative scale entails an enormous reduction in complexity. The…
-
Arkady and Boris Strugatsky: ‘Hard to be a god’ (1964). Or: The tragedy of being progressive
At last someone has got it right: the ‘Dark Middle Ages’ never existed, they are still in the future. What serves us in the present as a projection screen for…


